Clarification: But no more, because they did not want to do it so close to nightfall.

Implied Question: And when Rava explains later that according to Rebbi Yishmael that its arrangement on Shabbos Erev Pesach was the same as the arrangement on a regular weekday, and that they then brought the Pesach in nine (or ten) and a half hours?

Answer: That is only because they have to, due to the fear that the meat will become hot (and turn rancid).

Question: In 'Amar lahem ha'Memuneh' (Yoma, Daf 28:) the Gemara asks why one does not Shecht it when the walls begin to turn black (from the shade i.e. at the beginning of the seventh hour).

Answer: And it answers that the walls were not completely vertical (but at an angle),in which case it took a little longer for the shade to appear.

Clarification: The Machlokes is confined to Shabbos of Erev Pesach, where there is Heter to bring it earlier, due to the Pesach that is brought after it.

Clarification (cont.): In which case it is not possible to decree on account of a regular weekday.

Conclusion: But on a normal Shabbos it is brought in the same order as on a weekday, a decree of Shabbos on account of weekdays.

Question: Why does one not bring it (The Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim) at the beginning of the eighth hour?

Answer #1: Rashi (in his first answer) explains 'because the distribution of the Lechem haPAnim has not been completed by the end of the seventh hour.

Refutation: The Ri does not agree however, seeing as the Gemara says that according to Rebbi Akiva the Bazichin are brought in the fifth hour and the Musafin in the sixth ...

Refutation (cont.): Implying that according to Rebbi Akiva, the burning (of the Bazichin) and the distribution of the Lechem ha'Panim only take an hour (See Maharsha).

Answer 2#: The Ri therefore concurs with Rashi's second answer.

Inmplied Question: Even though one can query Rava too, as Rabah bar Ula asks later - 'Does it say "Just as it is arranged on a regular weekday, so is it arranged on Shabbos of Erev Pesach'?

Answer: Rava does not consider this a Pircha, seeing as Rebbi Yishmael is referring to the Mishnah, which says 'Erev ha'Pesach is the same whether it falls on a weekday or on Shabbos.

Conclusion: Hence it was not necessary to insert 'Erev ha'Pesach' in his words.

Reason: This is because washing the intestines does not override Shabbos, as the Gemara explains in Perek Eilu Devarim (on Daf 65.).

Clarification: When the Mishnah says 'whether it is on a weekday or on Shabbos', it refers, not to the Reisha but to Erev Pesach

Question: And when the Gemara says 'that it is unanimous' ...

Answer: What it means is that it is possible to say that the opinions in the Beraisa that we are discussing concur with one another.

Answer (cont.): The two Beraisos that we will cite shortly specifically argue over Shabbos of Erev Pesach.

Answer (concl.): And from them once can certainly extrapolate that it is not unanimous.

Clarification: It is unnecessary to explain that Monday is Davka, because it is the first possible day on which the fourteenth can fall. It cannot fall on Sunday, due to the principle 'Lo Badu Pesach' (Pesach cannot fall on Monday, Wednesday of Friday) ...

Reason: Since, Seeing as, in any case, according to Rava, who does not establish it by Erev Pesach, Monday is indeed Lav Davka!

Conclusion: According to Abaye too, it will not matter if Monday is Lav Davka.

Rashi: Rashi explains that they used to declare Rosh Chodesh by sighting the new moon (so Rosh Chodesh could even fall on Sunday)

Refutation: But the RI disagrees and maintains that even if they declared Rosh Chodesh by sighting of the new moon they were careful that two days of 'Shabbos' should not fall one after the other ...

Source: As the Gemara explicitly says in the first Perek of Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 20a) 'If the new moon was seen in its time, one scares the witnesses into declaring that they did not see it'.

Implied Question: And althouh the Gemara says in Perek Eilu Kesharim (Shabbos 113.) that the fat-pieces of Shabbos can be brought on Yom-Kipur ...

Answer: The Gemara in 'ha'Chalil' (Succah 54:) establishes it like Acherim, who holds that 'Between one Shavu'os and the next, there must be four days!'

Question: One can just as well ask on Rabah bar Ula, according to whom Rebbi Akiva holds that the Musafin precede the Bazichin ...

Question (cont.): Yet since we establish the Beraisa like Abaye, Rebbi Akiva will hold that the Tamid is Shechted in six and a half hours ...

Question (concl.): In which case, the Bazichin will precede the Musafin?

Answer #1: The Rashba answers that according to Rabah bar Ula, Rebbi Akiva refers specifically to the Reisha, 'Tamid Kol ha'Shanah Karev Kehilchaso' - implying that it is irrespective as to whether it is weekday or Shabbos.

Answer #1(cont.): And it is on that that Rebbi Akiva argues and says that Shabbos the whole year round is like Erev Pesach, which is exactly what Rabah bar Ula says.

Answer #2: Or he will explain (the Beraisa) like Rava.

Question: In Zevachim, Perek Kol ha'Tadir (Daf 89.) The Mishnah learns it from a different Pasuk - "The Temidin precede the Musafin, as the Torah says "Besides the morning Olah which is the Olas ha'Tamid".

Refuted Answer #1: We cannot answer that that Pasuk is needed for a Tzibur which does not have animals for both Temidin and Musafin, only enough for one of them.

Refutation: Since we learned there that 'The blood of the Chatas precedes that of the Olah', and the Din of Temidin and Musafin speaks in the equivalent case.

Refuted Answer #2: Nor can we answer that the second Pasuk to teach us that the precedence is crucial (Ikuva) ...

Refutation: Since the Gemara in 'ha'Techeiles (Menachos, Daf 49:) specifically states that it is not.

Answer #1: We need the Pasuk there to teach us that the Musafin do not take precedence, whereas the Pasuk teaches us that Nedarim and Nedavos don't.

Answer #1 (cont.): And we need them both, since, on the one hand, perhaps Musafin, which are a Korban Tzibur, are more stringent; whilst on the other, Nedarim and Nedavos are perhaps more stringent, since they are more common that Musafin.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Pasuk here comes to teach us that the burning takes precedence, since the Pasuk writes "And he shall arrange the Olah on it", whereas the Pasuk there refers to the precedence regarding the Shechitah, seeing as the Pasuk "Ta'asu es Eileh" is written in connection with the sprinkling of the blood (which follows it).

Implied Question: And when the Gemara in 'ha'Techeiles (Ibid.), in connection with the Mishnah 'The Temidin precede the Musafin', and the Gemara asks how it speaks; if it speaks that one has both Korbanos, and it is a question of which one comes first, did we not learn in a Beraisa "From where do we know that nothing may precede the Korban Tamid?'

Implied Question (cont.): Whereupon the Gemara cites the Pasuk of Rava, and not that of "Mil'vad ... "?

Answer #1: That is because the Lashon 'she'Lo Y'hei Davar Kodem ... ' implies Ikuva. That is why it quotes the Pasuk cited in the Mishnah.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is coming to teach us that even with regard to the burning, which the Mishnah does not mention in 'Kol ha'Tadir', the morning Tamid takes precedence.

Question: Why do we need "ha'Olah" and "Mil'vad". Why can we not learn that the Tamid precedes the Musafin from the fact that by Tamid, the Torah writes "ba'Boker", whereas by the Musafin, it writes "ba'Yom", which implies when the sun is high in the sky?

Observation: According to what we cited from 'ha'Techeiles', that the prohibition of bringing a Korban before the Tamid is not crucial, the Gemara at the beginning of Eruvin (Daf 2.) fits nicely. The Gemara says there that 'Shelamim that are Shechted before the doors of the Heichal have been opened are Pasul, because the Torah says "And he shall Shecht them at the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed" - 'when they are open and not when they are closed!'?

Observation (cont.): Because as far as the reason that they were Shechted before the Tamid shel Shachar is concerned, they would not be Pasul (Bedi'eved).

Implied Question: And when it says in the Tosefta in this Masechta (Perek 4) that 'All Kodshim that one brings before the Tamid shel Shachar or that one held back until after the Tamid shel bein ha'Arbayim are Pasul, because the only thing that precedes the Tamid shel Shachar is the Ketores, and the only thing that come after the Tamid shel bein ha'Arbayim is the Ketores ... '?

Answer: 'Pesulin' there is mi'de'Rabbanan.

Question: [See Tosfos Eruvin (Daf 2. DH 'Shelamim'), and Tosfos Yoma (Daf 29.). Refer to the latter, who specifically writes that the Lashon of the Tosefta implies that even if the blood was sprinkled Bedi'eved and they fulfilled all the Mitzvos, they are nevertheless Pasul, since it says 'that one brings', and not 'that one Shechts'.

Question (concl.): Now if it was only mi'de'Rabbanan, why are they Pasul?